Research Octane Numbers of Primary and Mixed Alcohols from

23 Apr 2014 - In this work, the performance of primary alcohols was experimentally determined using the research octane number (RON) and the blending ...
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Download PDF
Article pubs.acs.org/EF

Research Octane Numbers of Primary and Mixed Alcohols from Biomass-Based Syngas Vi H. Rapp,*,†,‡ J. Hunter Mack,† Philipp Tschann,§ Wolfgang Hable,∥ Robert J. Cattolica,⊥ and Robert W. Dibble† †

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California−Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, United States Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics, Graz University of Technology, Rechbauerstraße 12, 8010 Graz, Austria ∥ Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Automotive Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Karlsplatz 13, 1040 Vienna, Austria ⊥ Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California−San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, United States §

ABSTRACT: Primary alcohols (ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-butanol, and 1-pentanol) derived from biomass offer a sustainable fuel source that can improve efficiency while reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, the performance of these primary alcohols in spark-ignited engines is relatively unknown. In this work, the performance of primary alcohols was experimentally determined using the research octane number (RON) and the blending research octane number (BRON). The primary alcohol mixture, or “AlcoMix,” consists of 75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1-butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol and was approved by the U.S. EPA for use in blending with gasoline. This mixture is the probable outcome of the thermochemical conversion of biomass using Fischer−Tropsch chemistry with synthesis gas. The purpose of this research was to determine whether AlcoMix might be a suitable replacement for ethanol in fuel blending as an antiknock blending component for spark-ignited engines. As an indicative measure of knock resistance, the RONs of AlcoMix and ethanol were estimated using a modified, validated method in a CFR engine. The antiknock properties of AlcoMix as a blending component in gasoline were determined by estimating the BRON. The results show that the measured RON of the individual primary alcohols closely match published values. Additionally, the RON and BRON of the primary alcohol mixture nearly match those of ethanol. These results indicate that the primary alcohol mixture produced by thermochemical processes could be used as a substitute for ethanol as a primary fuel or as an antiknock blending component. generally have high octane numbers.12−16 These high-octane mixed alcohols can be used directly as a transportation fuel in spark-ignited combustion engines or as an antiknock blending component in gasoline, as is currently done with ethanol.17 The thermochemical conversion of biomass to a mixed alcohol is based on a three-step chemical process that includes gasification of the biomass to producer gas, reforming of producer gas into syngas, and synthesis of syngas to produce the final product, a mixed alcohol fuel. The conversion of syngas to mixed alcohols is based on the modern extension of the first synthesis process developed by Fischer and Tropsch over iron catalysts in 1922.16 In 1989, the Dow Chemical Company18 developed a process that allows for the selection of the mixed alcohol composition by controlling the extent of intimate contact among the catalytic components during synthesis. The synthesis catalyst used in this process is composed of a mixture of MoS2, CoS2, and K2CO3 in a ratio of 3:2:1.5 on a mass basis. Mixed alcohols generated from the 1989 Dow Chemical Company process can be used as a blending component in gasoline or diesel.18

1. INTRODUCTION Worldwide, a considerable amount of research has been conducted to develop alternative fuel sources that mitigate climate change by reducing the amount of climate-forcing pollutants produced by combustion.1−6 Biofuels made from agricultural products, which are oxygenated by nature, are advantageous because they are renewable and reduce climateforcing combustion pollutants.1,2,7,8 Additionally, biofuels reduce the dependence on importing oil, as they can be created from lignocellulosic biomass, offering sustainability without threatening food supplies.6,9 Two methods are commonly used to produce biofuels from biomass. The first method is fermenting sugars with yeasts or bacteria to produce ethanol, butanol, acetic acid, and other products. Sugars used in this process can be derived from corn, sugar cane, or wood (lignocellulosic biomass).10,11 The second method requires a thermochemical conversion process that converts biomass to a synthesis gas (or syngas) composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO). Using the Fischer−Tropsch (F−T) process followed by an isomerization process, syngas can be synthesized to a straight-chain hydrocarbon with a distribution of chain lengths.12,13 Competing reactions in the F−T process can be used to produce a mixture of straight-chain alcohols (R−OH), which © 2014 American Chemical Society

Received: January 16, 2014 Revised: March 22, 2014 Published: April 23, 2014 3185

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

pentanol) used to create AlcoMix was also estimated. The suitability of AlcoMix as an antiknock blending component was estimated by comparing the BRON of AlcoMix with that of ethanol. Because gasoline composition has been shown to affect the BRON of alcohol−gasoline fuel blends,26 the same nonoxygenated gasoline was used for AlcoMix blends and ethanol blends.

The basic alcohol mixture composition using a MoS2-based catalyst described in the Dow Chemical Company patent18 contains 30% methanol. Because methanol substantially raises the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline, regulations often limit the methanol content in gasoline.19 To create an alcohol mixture that has less of an effect on the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline, methanol can be recycled through the catalyst to produce more higher-order alcohols such as ethanol. Combining mixed alcohols with nonoxygenated gasoline has the potential to enhance the octane number and reduce nonmethane hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions.20−22 Table 1 lists potential mixed alcohol compositions using a MoS2-based catalyst with and without methanol recycling.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Experimental Setup. All experiments were conducted in a Waukesha Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) F-4 research engine. The CFR F-4 engine is a spark-ignited, single-cylinder, variablecompression-ratio engine. Selected specifications for the CFR F-4 engine used in this study are listed in Table 2. The CFR F-4 engine

Table 2. Selected CFR F-4 Engine Specifications

Table 1. Mixed Alcohol Composition for MoS2-Based Catalyst with and without Methanol Recycling18 alcohol

mixed alcohol baseline composition (%)

mixed alcohol composition after reycling methanol (%)

methanol ethanol 1-propanol 1-butanol 1-pentanol

28 50 16 4 2

0 75 11 8 6

type bore stroke cylinder swept volume compression ratio volume of combustion chamber length of connecting rod piston material piston rings

In this work, we investigated the antiknock properties of an alcohol mixture produced using a MoS2-based catalyst described in the Dow Chemical Company patent18 with methanol recycling. This alcohol mixture, hereafter referred to as “AlcoMix”, contains 75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol (as shown in Table 1). We chose to investigate this specific blend of alcohols because the U.S. EPA has already approved it for blending with gasoline.23 Additionally, AlcoMix can be separated by distillation into individual alcohols and sold in the marketplace. The benefits of using AlcoMix in comparison to pure ethanol are the following: • eliminates the need for additional distillation and decreases production costs in terms of both energy consumption and capital costs; • offers a higher energy content on a volume basis and reduced hydroscopic properties; and • reduces the effect on the Reid vapor pressure of gasoline, enabling higher alcohol concentrations when blending with gasoline without increasing volatile organic compounds. The purpose of this research was to determine whether AlcoMix is a suitable replacement for ethanol in fuel blending. As an indicative measure for knock resistance, the ASTM standard research octane numbers (RONs) of AlcoMix and ethanol were estimated using a modified method. This method can be applied to any engine to estimate the ASTM standard for RON and has been validated by previous research.20,24,25 The antiknock properties of AlcoMix as a blending component in gasoline were determined by measuring the blending research octane number (BRON). BRON was estimated by measuring the RONs using the modified method, hereafter denoted simply as the RONs, of blends containing AlcoMix and nonoxygenated gasoline (RON = 82). The compositions of blends of AlcoMix and nonoxygenated gasoline included 0% (no AlcoMix), 5%, 10%, 15%, and 100% (pure AlcoMix). This method was also used to estimate the BRON for ethanol. The RON of each alcohol (ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-butanol, and 1-

water-cooled four-stroke 8.265 cm (3.254 in) 11.43 cm (4.500 in) 613.252 cm3 (37.432 in.3) 4:1−17.5:1 (variable) 176.7−40.8 cm3 (10.784−2.489 in.3) 25.4 cm (10 in.) aluminum three compression, two oil

was modified from its original specifications (built in 1950) to increase the flexibility and control of the operating parameters. Modifications included enabling knock testing and operation with pure alcohols and gasoline−alcohol blends.27 Additionally, the original coolant system, intake air system, and fuel system were replaced. The original coolant system, which operated by natural convection of the coolant through the cylinder jacket, was replaced with a forced convection system that continuously pumps coolant through the jacket. Building water was used to cool the engine coolant in a heat exchanger to maintain a constant engine cylinder temperature. The intake air system was modified from a naturally aspirated system and connected to the house air supply with a heater. This modification allowed for control of both the intake air pressure and the intake air temperature. A 10 L plenum was added in front of the intake manifold to dampen pressure pulses. Intake air temperature was controlled using a Sylvania Sure Heat Jet (8 kW) resistance heater. Three pressurized fuel tanks were added, allowing for quick fuel switching and minimizing contamination during transitions between fuels. A schematic of the modified CFR F-4 system is shown in Figure 1. In-cylinder pressure was measured using a 6052B Kistler piezoelectric pressure transducer in conjunction with a 5044A Kistler charge amplifier and was recorded every 0.1 crank angle degree (CAD). The cylinder pressure transducer was mounted in the cylinder head. Intake pressure was measured using a 4045A5 Kistler piezoresistive pressure transducer in conjunction with a 4643 Kistler amplifier module. Crank angle position was determined using an optical encoder, and an electric motor, controlled by an ABB variable-speed frequency drive, controlled the engine speed. A Motec M4 engine control unit (ECU) controlled spark timing, injection timing, injection pulse width, and injection duty cycle. 2.2. Determining Knock Resistance. The American Society for Testing and Materials (now ASTM International) developed a standard test for determining the knock resistance of fuels using the research octane number (RON), ASTM D2699.28 The standard test method requires a Waukesha CFR F-1 engine and derives the octane number by bracketing a test fuel’s knocking characteristics with data from primary reference fuels (PRFs). The original CFR F-1 engine determines the octane number using a “detonation meter” (magnetostrictive transducer) to measure the degree of knock intensity. The detonation meter is located in the cylinder head and measures the peak knock intensity over a short period of time. A knock meter is 3186

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental setup for the Waukesha CFR F-4 research engine. use a band-pass filter and a rectifier to generate a signal of the relevant pressure oscillations. The rectified signal can be integrated to produce an average measure of the oscillations, creating a knock indicator.29,30 Another method uses the first and third derivatives of the pressure trace to create a knock indicator.32 The use of a pressure-trace-based knock indicator requires high sampling frequencies to measure the pressure oscillations accurately. The location of the in-cylinder pressure transducer also influences the ability to measure the fluctuations of the pressure because of pressure nodes.32 Using the in-cylinder pressure trace to measure knock intensity assumes that, under set operating conditions, combustion characteristics in the two Waukesha CFR engines are similar. Section 3 provides details on the theoretical basis for the knock detection method. 2.3. Suitability as an Antiknock Blending Component. The blending research octane number (or BRON) represents a fuel’s ability to increase the octane number at low blend compositions. Therefore, the BRON is a useful tool for assessing a fuel’s potential as an antiknock blending component in gasoline. The BRON is determined using a linear extrapolation from the octane numbers of mixtures (between 0% and 20%, on either a volumetric or molar basis) of the antiknock blending components and nonoxygenated gasoline. The BRON of a fuel blend can be calculated using the equation

used to display the knocking intensity and measure the frequency of the knocking intensity measured by the detonation meter. At a specified rotational speed (in rpm) and intake temperature, the compression ratio is steadily increased until the signal from the knock meter surpasses the published standard threshold.24 The compression ratio is then recorded and compared to data from the PRFs to determine the octane number. Figure 2 provides a graphical

BRON = RONref + Figure 2. Diagram illustrating the bracketing method used to determine octane number.28 At a set percentage of knocking cycles, the octane number is linearly interpolated using the two reference fuels.

1 (RONbl − RONref ) f

(1)

where RONref is the research octane number of the base fuel (i.e., nonoxygenated gasoline), RONbl is the octane number of the fuel blend, and f is the fraction of the antiknock blending component on a volumetric basis.33 The improvement in octane number that an antiknock blending component gives to the resulting fuel blend depends on the both the antiknock blending component and the blend composition.33 Many antiknock blending components contribute nonlinear effects when increasing the octane number, especially at low blend compositions.34 2.4. Fuel Blends. The AlcoMix created for this study was made from a mixture containing several alcohols of at least 98% purity. It (75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1-butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol) represents a potential alcohol mixture composition using a MoS2based catalyst described in the Dow Chemical Company patent18 with methanol recycling. The RON of each alcohol (ethanol, 1-propanol, 1butanol, and 1-pentanol) in AlcoMix was estimated using the method described in section 2.2. The antiknock properties of AlcoMix were evaluated using the BRON, which was estimated by blending AlcoMix

representation of the bracketing of a test fuel using PRFs to determine the octane number. For example, if the reference fuels have octane numbers of 70 and 75, then the sample fuel has an octane number of about 71, assuming that the knock criterion is that 5% of the cycles are knocking. One should also note that the percentage of knocking cycles increases with compression ratio. The CFR F-4 engine used for the experimental results presented in this work was not equipped with a detonation meter or knock meter. However, an alternative method for measuring the occurrence and intensity of knocking was generated because of the nearly identical engine designs between the CFR F-1 and CFR F-4 models. The incylinder pressure was used as a direct and reliable method for measuring knock and knock intensity. Several methods exist for creating a knock indicator using the pressure trace.29−32 Most methods 3187

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

with nonoxygenated gasoline at levels of 0% (pure nonoxygenated gasoline), 5%, 10%, 15%, and 100% (pure AlcoMix). Blend compositions of less than 15% were chosen to capture the nonlinear increase in RON with compression ratio, as the nonlinear effect at higher blend compositions is significantly less.35 The BRON of ethanol was also estimated using blends of 0% (no ethanol), 6%, and 100% ethanol balanced by nonoxygenated gasoline. An exact composition of the nonoxygenated gasoline used in this study could not be obtained. However, the nonoxygenated gasoline used in this study was a California reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending. The California phase 3 reformulated gasoline (CaRFG3) standards stipulate that this gasoline can have an RON ranging from 82 to 88 and cannot contain more than 1.22 vol % benzene, 38.7 vol % aromatics, and 11.1 vol % olefins.36 Primary reference fuels (PRFs) were used for bracketing the knocking characteristics of fuels and determining the RON. As defined in the ASTM D2699 standard,28 PRFs are blends of n-heptane (RON = 0) and isooctane (RON = 100). The RON of a PRF is given by the volume percentage of isooctane. For example, PRF 75 indicates 75% isooctane and thus an RON of 75. Using PRFs, fuels with any RON between 0 and 100 can be created. The PRFs were tested in the same procedure as the test fuels and used as references for RONs less than or equal to 100. When the test fuel had an RON greater than 100, the PRFs were extended using toluene standardization fuels (TSFs).37 The reference fuel blends used in this study are summarized in Table 3.

Table 4. Selected Operating Conditions during Knock Testing

n-heptane (%)

isooctane (%)

toluene (%)

70−100 103.3 107.6 113

100 − x 11 6 0

x 15 20 26

0 74 74 74

value 600 ± 6 rpm 52 ± 1 °C 1.015 bar (14.72 psi) 360° BTDC 13° BTDC 100% (wide open) 2.75 bar (40 psi) 40 °C 81 ± 2 °C 45 min 15 min stoichiometric

dynamometer. After the fuels had been changed, the engine was operated for at least 15 min to ensure that any residual fuel was flushed from the system and that the engine was operating at steady-state temperatures.

3. KNOCK DETECTION THEORY As stated in the previous section, the CFR F-4 engine used for the experimental results presented in this article was not equipped with a detonation meter or a knock meter. Therefore, an alternative method for measuring the occurrence and intensity of knocking was generated because of the nearly identical engine designs between the CFR F-1 and CFR F-4 models. Knock was detected using a modified version of the integral of modulus of pressure oscillation (IMPO) published by Brecq et al.31 In this method, the in-cylinder pressure data are high-pass-filtered, rectified, and then integrated to yield the IMPO value. For our CFR F-4 engine, the IMPO value was used as the knock indicator (KI), but we applied a band-pass filter (4−10 kHz) instead of a high-pass filter to remove pressure oscillations not caused by engine knock. The range of frequencies in which knock occurred was determined using a Fourier transformation of the in-cylinder pressure data obtained while the engine was knocking. Multiple experiments with different fuels and operating conditions confirmed that the natural frequency range for the band-pass filter was 4−10 kHz. Previous research conducted by Millo et al.29 agreed well with our results, as it gave a natural frequency range of 4−9 kHz for combustion chambers similar to the CFR F-4 engine. After being filtered and rectified, the pressure data were then integrated over 200 crank angle degrees, starting at 20° before top dead center (BTDC). Integrating the filtered and rectified pressure data yielded the KI as

Table 3. Compositions of Reference Fuels Used in This Study as Defined in the ASTM D269928 Standard and the ASTM Manual for Rating Motor, Diesel and Aviation Fuels37 RON (x)

parameter engine speed intake air temperature intake pressure injection timing spark timing throttle position fuel pressure oil temperature cylinder jacket temperature initial warmup time fuel transition time equivalence ratio

2.5. Test Operating Procedure. The conditions described in the ASTM D2699 standard for determining RON28 were approximated using the modified knock indication method described in section 3 and a modified injection method. As described in section 2.1, the CFR F-4 engine used for our experiments is port-fuel-injected, whereas the CFR F-1 engine required in the ASTM standard for RON is carbureted. As shown in previous research, port fuel injection captures more of the latent heat from the alcohol fuel blend.38 To minimize the latent heat gained by port fuel injection and mimic carbureted conditions, a closed-valve fueling strategy was used in which the injector was aimed at the intake valve and the fuel was injected at top dead center (TDC) when the intake and exhaust valves were closed (i.e., during combustion of the previous charge). This method attempted to maximize the vaporization time, better simulating the behavior of a carburetor. Before data were recorded for a fuel blend, the air/fuel ratio was adjusted to stoichiometric, and the engine was operated for 5 min under knocking conditions to approximate ASTM D2699 procedures.28 When knocking operation was stable, the compression ratio was gradually decreased until almost no knock occurred. Starting from this point, the compression ratio was increased incrementally until 30% of all cycles knocked. The percentage of knocking cycles was determined from 1000 consecutive knocking cycles at a set compression ratio. At knocking thresholds less than 30%, the percentage of knocking cycles varied significantly between engine cycles. At knocking thresholds greater than 30%, the engine knock was severe. Therefore, to minimize the risk of damaging the engine and to ensure repeatability for measuring RON, we chose a knocking threshold of 30%. At each compression ratio, 1000 consecutive pressure cycles were recorded. Table 4 lists selected engine operating conditions for knock testing. When fuels were being changed, the spark plug was turned off, and the engine was allowed to motor (no combustion) using the

180

KI =

∫i−20 |pi | dθ

(2)

where |pi| represents the band-pass-filtered and rectified incylinder pressure data for a given cycle i and θ is the crank angle degree.31 A schematic of the KI developed for our CFR F-4 engine that was implemented into LABVIEW is shown in Figure 3. Adjusting an engine’s compression ratio varies both the KI and the frequency of knock occurrence. When determining the octane number of a fuel, we increased the compression ratio and then recorded when 5% of all cycles knocked. The high cycle-to-cycle variation in the CFR F-4 engine set the 5% knocking threshold. For the CFR F-4 engine, a cycle was 3188

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

Figure 3. Schematic for developing a knock indicator using the incylinder pressure as described by Brecq et al.31

defined as knocking if the KI range exceeded the “noise level” by 50 units (bar-CAD). The noise level, which is a function of compression ratio, was determined by comparing the incylinder pressure from nonknocking combustion with motoring (no combustion) to the in-cylinder pressure for 1000 consecutive cycles. A complete sweep from no knocking to strong knocking (over the 5% frequency threshold) was recorded for every experiment. Although the ASTM D269928 standard was not fully applied in this study, this method of predicting RON using our CFR F-4 engine was previously validated.20,24,25 For example, Figure 4 shows that our measured RON results for PRFs are consistent with simulated results obtained using a detailed mechanism.20

Figure 5. RON for AlcoMix (75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol) as a function of the volumetric blend composition.

Figure 6. RON for ethanol as a function of the volumetric blend composition. Figure 4. RON as a function of knocking compression ratio for primary reference fuel (PRF) blends. By definition, the number following the PRF blend is equal to the RON. For example, PRF 70 has an RON of 70. Therefore, each data point represents a different PRF blend. The knocking compression ratio is the compression ratio at which knocking first occurs in the CFR engine. The simulated results, using the detailed mechanism from DeFilippo et al.,20 are consistent with the experimental data.

According to Figure 5, AlcoMix has a BRON of 130.4 and an RON of 110.8. A BRON of 130.4 indicates that AlcoMix could be a good candidate for use as an antiknock blending component, given that ethanol has a measured BRON of 134.4, as shown in Figure 6. The measured RON for ethanol is 111.2. Figure 7 compares the RON enhancements of AlcoMix and ethanol at equal volumetric blending concentrations in

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Research octane numbers (RONs) were estimated for the following fuels: nonoxygenated gasoline (RON = 82), ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-butanol, 1-pentanol, and AlcoMix (75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1-butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol), as well as blends of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 100% AlcoMix with nonoxygenated gasoline. The volumetric and molar blending research octane numbers (BRONs) were estimated for ethanol and AlcoMix. Figures 5 and 6 show the RONs of AlcoMix and ethanol in relation to the blend composition. The blend composition represents the volume percentage of alcohol (ethanol or AlcoMix) blended with nonoxygenated gasoline. A single test was conducted for each blend. The dashed lines in each figure indicate the RON and BRON values for ethanol and AlcoMix. The dotted line in each figure indicates extrapolation of the BRON using the measured RONs of blend compositions less than or equal to 15%.

Figure 7. AlcoMix displays antiknock blending characteristics similar to those of ethanol when blended at various concentrations with nonoxygenated gasoline (RON = 82). 3189

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

5. CONCLUSIONS The antiknock properties of an alcohol mixture produced from the thermochemical conversion of biomass using Fischer− Tropsch chemistry with synthesis gas were investigated in a spark-ignited engine to determine its potential as an antiknock blending component. The alcohol mixture (AlcoMix), which contained no methanol, as it was recycled back through the catalyst, was composed of 75% ethanol, 11% 1-propanol, 8% 1butanol, and 6% 1-pentanol. RON and BRON values for AlcoMix and ethanol were determined experimentally using a single-cylinder Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) engine. The research octane number (RON) of each alcohol (ethanol, 1propanol, 1-butanol, and 1-pentanol) used to create AlcoMix was also estimated. A testing procedure that can be applied to any engine was developed to estimate the ASTM standard for RON. This method, based on in-cylinder pressure data, was developed and validated to measure the knocking intensity at a set operating point. The values obtained by the modified approach outlined in this article yielded RON values for ethanol, 1-butanol, and 1propanol similar to those found in the literature. Additionally, the measured RON values for primary reference fuels were consistent with simulated results. The RON and BRON results for AlcoMix indicate that AlcoMix acts similarly to ethanol as an octane enhancer (BRON ≈ 130). The measured RON for AlcoMix was 110.8 and closely matched the measured RON of ethanol, 111.2. Similar RON values for AlcoMix and ethanol were expected because ethanol comprised 75% of AlcoMix. These results indicate that AlcoMix produced from syngas is a viable substitute for pure ethanol in blends with gasoline.

nonoxygenated gasoline. Although AlcoMix contains 75% ethanol and 25% alcohols with lower octane numbers than ethanol, AlcoMix provides RON enhancement similar to that of ethanol when blended with gasoline. Possible sources of error in determining RON and BRON values include slight fluctuations of the intake air temperature, humidity, and pressure, all of which could impact the combustion event. Because the determination of the BRON requires an extrapolation from RON values at low blend compositions, small deviations in the RON values could have a significant effect on the BRON. The standard deviation for RON values of blends containing 15% or less AlcoMix ranged from 0.1 to 1.5. Error bars for AlcoMix results were omitted to improve the clarity of the figure. The standard deviation for the RON of ethanol was 1.8. The RONs for blends of ethanol in nonoxygenated gasoline were measured once, so the corresponding standard deviation range is not available. The effects on the RON of blending with AlcoMix and ethanol can also be compared using the molar composition instead of the volumetric composition.39,40 For fuels with smaller molar masses (e.g., methanol and ethanol), the nonlinearity of the volumetric blending curves is effectively eliminated. Thus, the blending octane number can be closely approximated by the octane number of the pure fuel when calculated as a function of the molar composition. However, AlcoMix is 75% ethanol, and as expected, the BRONs on a molar basis of AlcoMix and ethanol are almost the same (see Table 5). Values of 750 kg/m3 and 110 g/mol were assumed for the density and molar mass, respectively, of the gasoline used in blending in calculations of the molar composition.

■

Table 5. Average Measured RON and BRON Values for AlcoMix and Ethanola fuel

RON

standard deviation

AlcoMix ethanol

110.8 111.2

±0.2 ±1.8

volumetric BRON molar BRON 130.4 134.3

*E-mail: [email protected].

107.1 107.9

Present Address ‡

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.

a

Two RON experiments were conducted for AlcoMix and AlcoMix blends. Three RON experiments were conducted for pure ethanol, and one experiment was conducted for ethanol blends.

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

Table 6 shows that the measured RONs of primary alcohols agree well with the values in the literature.26,27,30,41−43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was part of the UC Discovery-IUCRP Pilot Project titled “An Investigation of a Thermochemical Process for the Production of Mixed Alcohol from Biomass” under Agreement gcp06-10228.

Table 6. Measured and Published RON of Pure Alcohols fuel ethanol

measured RON

published RON

111.2

108−108.526 10927,41,42 11130 10442 9643 9842 −

1-propanol 1-butanol

102.6 96.0

1-pentanol

78.0

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

■

Published values for the RONs of 1-propanol and 1-pentanol were not found. One study17 did state that 1-pentanol is known to decrease the RON when blended with gasoline (octane number 66.7), PRF-70, or PRF-92. However, we did not observe this effect because the RON of pure 1-pentanol in gasoline blends was not investigated in this work.

■

ABBREVIATIONS BRON = blending research octane number BTDC = before top dead center CFR = Cooperative Fuel Research F−T = Fischer−Tropsch IMPO = integral of modulus of pressure oscillation PRF = primary reference fuel RON = research octane number rpm = revolutions per minute TSF = toluene standardization fuel REFERENCES

(1) Rakopoulos, D. C.; Rakopoulos, C. D.; Kakaras, E. C.; Giakoumis, E. G. Energy Convers. Manage. 2008, 49, 3155−3162. (2) Yan, J.; Lin, T. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, S1−S10.

3190

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191

Energy & Fuels

Article

(3) Miyamoto, N.; Ogawa, H.; Nabi, M. N. Int. J. Engine Res. 2000, 1, 71−85. (4) Choi, C. Y.; Reitz, R. D. Fuel 1999, 78, 1303−1317. (5) Rakopoulos, C. D.; Michos, C. N.; Giakoumis, E. G. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D: Automob. Eng. 2008, 222, 2065−2084. (6) Abu-Jrai, A.; Rodriguez-Fernandez, J.; Tsolakis, A.; Megaritis, A.; Theinnoi, K.; Cracknell, R. F.; Clark, R. H. Fuel 2009, 88, 1031−1041. (7) Hansen, A. C.; Kyritsis, D. C.; Lee, C. F. Characteristics of biofuels and renewable fuel standards. In Biomass to Biofuels: Strategies for Global Industries; Vertes, A. A., Qureshi, N., Blaschek, H. P., Yukawa, H., Eds.; John Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 2009; pp 3−26. (8) Hansen, A. C.; Zhang, Q.; Lyne, P. W. L. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 277−285. (9) Rakopoulos, C. D.; Antonopoulos, K. A.; Rakopoulos, D. C.; Hountalas, D. T.; Giakoumis, E. G. Energy Convers. Manage. 2006, 47, 3272−3287. (10) Bai, F. W.; Anderson, W. A.; Moo-Young, M. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008, 26, 89−105. (11) Holtzapple, M. T.; Granda, C. B. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009, 156, 525−536. (12) Schulz, H. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 1999, 186, 3−12. (13) Pichler, H.; Schulz, H. Chem. Ing. Tech. 1970, 42 (18), 1162− 1174. (14) Holtzapple, M. T.; Davison, R. R.; Ross, M. K.; Aldrett-Lee, S.; Nagwani, M.; Lee, C.-M.; Lee, C.; Adelson, S.; Kaar, W.; Gaskin, D.; Shirage, H.; Chang, N.-S.; Chang, V. S.; Loescher, M. E. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 1999, 77−79, 609−631. (15) Dry, M. E. Catal. Today 2002, 71, 227−241. (16) Lloyd, L. Handbook of Industrial Catalysts; Springer: New York, 2011; pp 3, 63−65. (17) Barannik, V. P.; Makarov, V. V.; Petrykin, A. A.; Shamonia, A. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2005, 41, 452−455. (18) Stevens, R. R.; Conway, M. M. (Dow Chemical Company). Mixed Alcohols Production from Syngas. U.S. Patent 4,831,060, May 16, 1989. (19) Andersen, V. F.; Anderson, J. E.; Wallington, T. J.; Mueller, S. A.; Nielsen, O. J. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 3647−3654. (20) DeFilippo, A.; Chin, G. T.; Chen, J.-Y. Combust. Sci. Technol. 2013, 185, 1202−1226. (21) Ratcliff, M. A.; Luecke, J.; Williams, A.; Christensen, E.; Yanowitz, J.; Reek, A.; McCormick, R. L. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 13865−13872. (22) Gravalos, I.; Moshou, D.; Gialamas, T.; Xyradakis, P.; Kateris, D.; Tsiropoulos, Z. Renewable Energy 2013, 50, 27−32. (23) Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 79, Title 40, Mar 14, 2014. (24) Hable, W. Combustion performance of mixed alcohol fuels in a CFR engine. M.S. Thesis, Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Automotive Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, Oct 2009. (25) Tschann, P. Emission and Performance Studies of Alternative Fuels. M.S. Thesis, Technical University Graz, Graz, Austria, Oct 2009. (26) Foong, T. M.; Morganti, K. J.; Brear, M. J.; da Silva, G.; Yang, Y.; Dryer, F. L. Fuel 2014, 115, 727−739. (27) Hunwartzen, I. Modification of CFR Test Engine Unit to Determine Octane Numbers of Pure Alcohols and Gasoline−Alcohol Blends; SAE Technical Paper 820002; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, 1982. (28) Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of SparkIgnition Engine Fuel; ASTM Standard D2699-11; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2011. (29) Millo, F.; Ferraro, C. Knock in S.I. Engines: A Comparison between Different Techniques for Detection and Control; SAE Technical Paper 982477; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, 1998. (30) Gautam, M.; Martin, D., II. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A: J. Power Energy 2000, 214, 497−511. (31) Brecq, G.; Bellettre, J.; Tazerout, M. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2003, 42, 523−532.

(32) Syrimis, M.; Assanis, D. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2003, 125, 494−499. (33) Golombok, M.; De Bruijn, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 267−271. (34) Stone, R. Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines; Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.: Warrendale, PA, 1999; pp 86−90. (35) Johnson, R.; Riley, R. Single Cylinder Spark Ignition Engine Study of the Octane, Emissions, and Fuel Economy Characteristics of Methanol− Gasoline Blends; SAE Technical Paper 760377; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, 1976. (36) Motor Vehicles. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2250−2273.5, Oct 9, 2012. (37) ASTM Manual for Rating Motor, Diesel and Aviation Fuels; American Society for Testing and Materials: Easton, MD, Oct 1973; pp 15−26. (38) Stein, R.; Polovina, D.; Roth, K.; Foster, M.; Lynskey, M.; Whiting, T.; Anderson, J. E.; Shelby, M. H.; Leone, T. G.; VanderGriend, S. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2012, 5, 823−843. (39) Anderson, J. E.; Kramer, U.; Mueller, S. A.; Wallington, T. J. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 6576−6585. (40) Mack, J. H.; Rapp, V. H.; Broeckelmann, M.; Lee, T. S.; Dibble, R. W. Fuel 2014, 117, 939−943. (41) Borman, G. L.; Ragland, K. W. Combustion Engineering; McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math: Madison, WI, 1998; p 37. (42) Christensen, E.; Yanowitz, J.; Ratcliff, M.; McCormick, R. L. Energy Fuels 2011, 25 (10), 4723−4733. (43) Wallner, T.; Miers, S. A.; McConnell, S. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2009, 131 (3), 32802−32809.

3191

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef5001453 | Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3185−3191